Tolkien's Estate Countersued in Legal Battle Over Lord of the Rings Slot Machines

Share

Tolkien's Estate Countersued in Legal Battle Over Lord of the Rings Slot Machines

Image: Warner Bros

Image: Warner Bros

For the second time in the past five years, the heirs of J.R.R. Tolkien are locked in legal battle with the parties responsible for the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies. In 2008, the issue was unpaid royalties from Peter Jackson's original trilogy, but now the problem is merchandising from the movies – and whether or not movie producers have the right to create Middle-earth-themed merchandise that includes gambling and online games. After getting slapped with a lawsuit by the Tolkien estate last year, THR reports that the Saul Zaentz Company, which has held the movie rights to Tolkien's work since 1976, has now struck back with their own countersuit.

Lawyers acting on behalf of a coalition of those controlling Tolkien's novels – including private corporations created to control copyright to both The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the British publishers of the books and the Tolkien Trust, a non-profit organization that makes charitable donations in the name of the author – originally filed a lawsuit last November against the Saul Zaentz Company, Lord of the Rings studio New Line and The Hobbit studio Warner Bros, accusing them of copyright infringement and breach of contract over Lord of the Rings-branded slot machines and videogames.

The lawsuit accused the three movie companies of "with increasing boldness, [engaging] in a continuing and escalating pattern of usurping rights to which they are not entitled" when it comes to merchandise connected to the movies based on the novels.

It also claimed that Lord of the Rings-themed gambling machines not only fell outside the scope of existing licensing agreements, but were something that caused "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy and reputation and the valuable goodwill generated by his works" through fan reaction to the idea. "Fans have publicly expressed confusion and consternation at seeing The Lord of The Rings associated with the morally-questionable (and decidedly non-literary) world of online and casino gambling," the lawsuit read, adding that "the damage to the goodwill that plaintiffs have painstakingly cultivated over the decades is patent."

After a couple of months of relative calm following the suit's filing, the Saul Zaentz Company has now filed its own counterclaim, arguing that not only do the licensing agreements not prohibit gambling merchandise or online gaming – and that a 1996 agreement specifically allows online video games – but also that the fame and goodwill generated for Tolkien's work is "largely the result of the dedicated efforts of Zaentz and its licensees (including Warner Bros.) over the past four decades."

In other words: Not only are we in the right, but you should be grateful that we made Tolkien's works so popular in the first place.

The Zaentz counterclaim goes on to argue that the original Tolkien lawsuit is entirely invalid in a number of ways, with its claims being barred by the doctrine of waiver, the doctrine of laches and the doctrine of unclean hands, as well as various statutes of limitation, existing agreements and contractual provisions. Furthermore, it suggests that any valid claims the lawsuit may have are "barred by [the Plaintiffs'] own material breach of the parties' agreements, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," and should be dismissed "on the ground that Plantiffs would be unjustly enriched if they were granted the relief sought."

Rather than dismiss the entire matter, however, Zaentz has asked for a jury trial to declare that it is in the right for everything that it's doing, and to be awarded its own damages for the accusations being raised in the first place.

Even with Warner Bros (which swallowed its New Line subsidiary whole in 2008) staying quiet on the matter to date, there is little doubt that this trial should be as epic as the stories that have inspired it when it eventually happens. Someone should make a movie about it. Better yet, someone should make three.